President Obama says that 80 percent of Americans agree with him that the plan to cut the deficit should include income tax increases as well as cuts in government spending.

Those would be tax increases for those making more than $200,000 per year; they account for less than 10 percent of Americans. Obviously, that 80 percent are agreeing to tax increases for someone else.

T.K. Martin La Verne

The good and bad

Re your coverage on the front page on July 16 of the memorial service for Alhambra Police Officer Ryan Stringer: It was touching. The photo of the grieving family was not.

Barbara VanEck West Covina

Negatives of rail

Regarding the Our View on Sunday, July 24, “Fast as a bullet train in our state”:

You state that Californians voted for the project. That may be so; however, had voters been told the facts and costs involved, the proposition would certainly have been defeated.

There are studies that project the cost to build the system to reach as much as $110 billion. Good luck with Michael Setty’s new estimate of $20 billion between San Francisco and Anaheim.

So now, it has been suggested to spend the voter-approved bond issue money for a section between Corcoran and Borden in order to get the federal money. This will certainly be of no use to people in San Francisco or Anaheim.

Your editorial also mentions that European and Asian countries “have had great success with their fast trains.” What fact did you base this statement on?

Ridership in Europe is only 5.8 percent, which is down from 8.2 percent. I would hardly call this successful.

Proposition 1A stipulated that the project must be self-sustaining and cannot be supplemented with state funds. With European ridership being so dismal, how can we say it would work in California?

European trains are either owned by governments and/or are subsidized.

While European countries utilized existing rails through populated areas to avoid disturbing communities, the California plan is in total disregard of this fact and calls for building unsightly elevated concrete structures through communities.

One of the issues is a planned 75-feet elevated structure in the middle of the I-10 right-of-way through the San Gabriel Valley. The train and the electric power lines will add another 30 feet on top of the structure. This plan is absurd and totally unsafe.

Building such unsafe and ugly structures will be detrimental to communities. By the way, the San Gabriel Valley Council of Governments, which consists of 31 San Gabriel Valley cities, is opposed to any elevated structure through its communities.

Jobs will not be created to the tune touted by politicians.

The U.S. does not have the technology to build high-speed trains, which means that trains will be imported, from China, most likely.

Also, where will the money to build the project come from? China, most likely. Who will operate the system? Not the state of California, but private enterprises or foreign governments who put up the money.

Trains will never replace cars for everyday travel; one-way ticket prices (from San Diego to San Francisco) have gone from the initial estimate of $55 to $110. Airplanes will still be faster and airfares, most likely, still cheaper.

Instead of building high-speed trains, let’s concentrate on higher education. It is a shame that education funding is cut further each year, while money is wasted by the California High Speed Rail Authority on a project that will never pay for itself.

Gisela Adams Alhambra

Needed opposition voices

It was a disservice to your readers to publish a one-sided account of affirmative action, an issue where there are strongly felt opinions, both for and against. Your story of nearly 1,400 words quoted two politicians, one activist and two professors, all of whom favor affirmative action and oppose Prop. 209. A reader just starting to consider the issue would have no reason to believe, based on your article, that there were arguments and organizations with deeply felt and plausible arguments against affirmative action.

You might have interviewed Ward Connerly or someone from the Center for Individual Rights. Certainly an article that permitted William Tierney to say “we need more people participating in higher education” could have rearranged its material to make space for one affirmative action opponent to offer an idea or two for your readers to consider.

William Voegeli Claremont

Keep rates down

George Ma’s column “Health insurance regulation would hinder patient care” (June 26) ignored the problems with the current health care system and failed to mention the obstacles small businesses face when seeking health coverage.

Ma claims California small businesses have “seen increases of only 9.7 percent since 2000,” yet this stands in stark contrast to the 20 to 50 percent premium hikes I’ve experienced just in the past decade. As a small business owner (I own a restaurant) who employs a full- time staff of 14, where am I supposed to get the extra cash to cover these huge premium hikes? My customers? If we raised our prices to cover the increased rates our restaurant would soon be empty and out of business.

Assembly Bill 52, the bill Ma opposes, would require health insurers to justify their increases, and if the state determines them to be excessive it can stop them from being approved. This seems only fair since it does the same for home and auto insurance. And despite Ma’s speculation, we haven’t seen an exodus of these insurers since the state passed a similar law regulating their rates decades ago.

It’s time for lawmakers in Sacramento to look out for the “Main Street” small businesses who still provide health insurance so we can finally get some relief and protection from exorbitant rate hikes